What on EARTH does the imposition of a nationwide value added tax on *all* goods and services have to do with whether a security firm provides a good quality service or is covered by public liability insurance???

The reference to VAT in the headline and article is utter nonsense and is nothing more than advertising for the writer's security firm dressed up as editorial. Who is publishing this stuff?

Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea.

And you do realize, I hope, that as a dress retailer (for example) your business fully recovers from government (by way of offset) the full amount of VAT you have paid regardless of achieving a final sale of those leftover 3 dresses? The only loser is government, which loses the opportunity to gain tax revenue from 3 dresses that weren't sold (but lost opportunity isn't really actual loss).

VAT is now a cost of doing business. Its not something different, intangible, special or ringfenced separate from any other cost of production that is added and included in the final cost of the sale. That's the effect and proper treatment of a value-added consumption tax. It has no unique character that makes it different from any other cost of production if that product is subsequently marked down, binned or gifted to charity.

Agreed, obviously yes, but its not quite a sample size as nothing has been surveyed or sampled, merely a figure plucked randomly from the sky as representing all citizens, some of whom VAT won't affect (e.g. infants and children who don't 'consume' at any great level, but for whom future National Debt repayments will likely be an issue) but simultaneously ignoring a large tranche of tourists who will contribute a reasonable share of annual VAT revenue (but for whom National Debt is not a responsibility).

And that is why using labour force figures, as opposed to every man, woman and child, is particularly useful as a *comparison* to the figures used in Mr Christie's calculations (and yours). Especially when considering the VAT's stated intention was to generate revenue to reduce the National Debt, and when its the labour force who is group in society most usually targeted by governments for future debt repayment obligations (via general taxation) were a consumption tax not used.

If I could only sell 9 of the 12 dresses I would be equally if not more concerned about the other 92.5% of their original cost of purchase (wholesale price of material, garment construction, freight, storage, handling and labor costs) that I might not recover either. This is normal business risk.

The entire automatic gratuity model is absurd and should be scrapped. Pay your workers a fully disclosed, all inclusive, complete and pre-agreed wage for work done based on output and time taken. Charge your customers a fully disclosed all-inclusive price for what they consume. No more "add on" service charges, gratuities and extra plus plus plus of any kind.

A gratuity is and should remain an unexpected, exceptional, non-automatic "tip" or "gift of generosity" from a customer for service that exceeds their expectation. This is one practice from the US that we needn't blindly follow any longer.

The Persis Rodgers Old Folks Home had better lock down its air conditioning units or grandpa may wake up tomorrow to find only the ceiling fan is left.

If it were just a 7.5% increase, Joseph Sands (name changed, identity obscured, in Witness Protection, etc) would've seen his grocery bill rise from $150 per week to approx $161 a week. Or if the real effect is somewhere between 10-12% as you suggest, the groceries would now be costing $165-168 a week. Where this (possibly fictitious or otherwise nom-de-plumed) man gets his $260 a week figure from is really anyones guess.

In the old days people (real or imagined) interviewed for stories in the newspaper were asked for simple facts and evidence to back up their claims before they were published. In this case, a couple of grocery store receipts from pre VAT and post VAT, for an equivalent sort of family sized food purchase, might have lent a bit more weight to this story. Followed by a bit of basic analysis of how $150 plus 7.5% could (im)possibly become $260 overnight.

I don't like tax either. But news stories like this do nothing to help the argument because the numbers just don't stack up.

And who knows, perhaps Dr Minnis is not in fact Dr Minnis, but instead someone else whose name, possibly like Joseph Sands, has been changed at their request for fear of grocerical retribution?

Our labour force (those adults available for work) stands at 197,333 according to the last *Bahamas Labour Force Survey.* Assuming your figure of $300m is the approximate VAT revenue collected in year one, it works out to be about $1500 VAT per adult of working age on average.

When our National Debt of $5.8 billion is divided by the same labour force figure, we're looking at roughly $29400 of debt per adult of working age, incurred by successive governments presumably to supply services and spending programs for and to the wider population over many years.

So we need about 20 years of VAT at current rates just to get control of our National Debt, assuming we don't borrow anymore to fund things we cannot actually afford. That may well mean skipping takeaway lunches, yes, as some taxpayers have tragically noted already.

Now we need, as a matter of urgency, a Fiscal Responsibility Act to support the goal of debt reduction, instead of leaving a massive debt for our children and grandchildren to try and pay back when we're all dead and gone (from malnutrition, as a result of having less hamburgers and buckets of fried chicken in our daily diets).